>Thanks again to the UT news (Evan, I presume?) for posting this one:
>
>http://news.com.com/2100-1023-832221.html?tag=cd_mh
>
>"The suit, which focuses on antivirus and firewall software sold by the company's McAfee subsidiary, centers on a "censorship clause" included in documentation presented to customers who download software from McAfee's Web site or use certain versions of package software. The clause says customers cannot publish product reviews or results of benchmark tests without permission from the company."
>
>I seem to remember talk about this a while ago with the SQL Server license.
>
>http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/136/IWD010417opfoster/
>
>". As Cringely readers are already aware, Microsoft recently prevented an independent lab from publishing benchmark results by using a term in the SQL Server license that says the user "may not disclose the results of any benchmark test ... without Microsoft's prior written approval" to threaten the lab with legal action."
>
>There are industry wide precedents about to be set here. That could be interesting.
>
>FWIW, I have mixed feelings at the moment. To me, the reviews and benchmarks shouldn't be banned in a license agreement, however, my intial prediction on the final decision is a half and half, the reviews will fall under free speech but the benchmarks will still be under the license.

We did talk about this awhile back. Remember when I asked someone if they thought it would be a good idea if Ford put a clause in their sales agreement that prohibited buyers from publishing accounts of their personal experience with rollovers while driving the Ford they purchased without advanced permission from Ford to do so? How about just prohibiting characterizations of the purchased vehicle as a 'lemon' without Ford's permission to do so. Puts the concept of free speach limitations in a contract in a whole new light....
JLK